News What Defines Terrorism in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict?

[Zero]

Originally posted by FZ+
Actually, those statements seem to be more about anti-Israeli government policies rather than anti-Jewish religion or people. It doesn't qualify as antisemitism per se. In the same way that critiquing the Spanish Inquisition isn't insulting christianity. A large number of Israeli citzens also feel that what Sharon is doing is wrong.

Thanks...I think I am pretty clear in my views, unless someone is so Rabidly pro-Israel that their perspective is skewed. I couldn't care less if they are Jewish, Methodist, or Jerry Springer worshippers.


I don't have a perfect answer to the problem...in the same way that, while I don't know how to perform open-heart surgery, I feel safe in saying that a rusty fork shouldn't be used in the procedure.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by FZ+
A large number of Israeli citzens also feel that what
Sharon is doing is wrong.

Yeah... A large number of Israeli citizens - the
settlers and their supporters, recently began protesting
and threatening him personally for Akaba and his
agreements with the Palestinians as well as his
pathetic (to them) actions against the terrorists.
Most of the rest are pretty much content.
As for the Israeli arabs, they're pretty much always not.

Peace and long life.

 

[Zero]

Well, since the settlements are in violation of a UN resolution...

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Zero
Well, since the settlements are in violation of a UN resolution...

I don't think people care much about the UN in the middle
east or in most other places btw. What is, however,
true is that the settlements are apparently the obstical
for peace. Not an agreed upon peace since after over a decade it seems that Israel can not seriously hope to reach any real and maintained agreement with the Palestinians.
But rather a peace that will be enforced and
protected by Israel by building a whole and complete border
with the Palestinian territories. Unfortunetly, the settlers
make the construction of this border very difficult and slow
and force the IDF to remain in order to protect them. These
people are and have been the direct obstical for peace (one
way or another) in Israel for a long time and it is unfortunate
that the Israeli governments are unwilling to take desicive
action against the settlements. Of course, it is well
known that the arabs will see any such one-sided move as
a clear sign of weakness - as they view any kind of retreat.
However, an Israel with defined single borders will be able
to prevent penetration of suicide bombers and missile attacks
can then be regarded as direct acts of war of the entire
Palestinian athority and treated very well accordingly without
any surface intervention. (Just my opinion, of course.)

Peace and long life.

 

[Laser Eyes]

Raven, that was an excellent post you made on the first page of this thread.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Zero
Well, since the settlements are in violation of a UN resolution...

I'm getting a strange sense of deja vu here...but, I'll ask anyway. Pray tell, which UN resolution is that, Zero?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kat
I'm getting a strange sense of deja vu here...but, I'll ask anyway. Pray tell, which UN resolution is that, Zero?

Actually, we have done this before...several times. Wanna skip all this and thumb-wrestle for it?


Better yet, I re-submit the idea of paving over all of israel, so that no one can have it. It IS just dirt, after all...let's make it all a parking lot, so people stop killing each other over it.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Zero
Actually, we have done this before...several times. Wanna skip all this and thumb-wrestle for it?

Uhh, no, I prefer that you actually answer the questions and support your statements...since you are the one making them.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by drag
What is, however,
true is that the settlements are apparently the obstical
for peace. Not an agreed upon peace since after over a decade it seems that Israel can not seriously hope to reach any real and maintained agreement with the Palestinians.
But rather a peace that will be enforced and
protected by Israel by building a whole and complete border
with the Palestinian territories. Unfortunetly, the settlers
make the construction of this border very difficult and slow
and force the IDF to remain in order to protect them. These
people are and have been the direct obstical for peace (one
way or another) in Israel for a long time and it is unfortunate
that the Israeli governments are unwilling to take desicive
action against the settlements.

At 7 million a foot, with a width of 2 to 3 hundred feet, snatching up palestinian farm land, dividing palestinian towns, forcing them to permanentlyuse checkpoints in order to get from home to farmland..this fence is a permanent obstacle to peace settlement in a way that outpost have never been. How do you build a permanent "fence" on borders that have yet to be negotiated?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kat
Uhh, no, I prefer that you actually answer the questions and support your statements...since you are the one making them.

No, you really don't want answers. At least6 not teh kind I can give you.

 

[FZ+]

Kat:

http://www.middleeastnews.com/unresolutionslist.html

# * Resolution 446: " . . . 'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious
# obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".

* Resolution 452: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories".

# * Resolution 465: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member
# states not to assist Israel's settlements program".

That's up to 1992. There may be additional ones since then.

Are the B52 Bombers on their way?

 

[kat]

FZ-Thank you! A straight answer!
Do you think those resolutions apply to Jews who lived in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) and Gaza Strip throughout recorded history, until the 1948 War of Independence, when they were forced to flee the invading Arab armies? (many of the current Jewish settlement communities existed prior to 1948, when they where overrun by invading armies and destroyed.) Kfar Etzion and other villages in the Jerusalem-Bethlehem corridor fell to Arab forces in May 1948 and those captured were massacred. Sons and daughters of Jews who lived there until 1948 were the first to return after the 1967 war.

Also, do you think that U.N. resolutions take priority over Palestinian/Israeli peace agreements in which Israel has agreed to negotiate the future of the settlements in the permanent status negotiations with the Palestinians? When the two sides have agreed that settlements in the areas are to remain unaffected and under exclusive Israeli authority? Even if the Israel-PLO agreements do not place any restrictions on the continued building or expansion of settlements?

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by kat
At 7 million a foot, with a width of 2 to 3 hundred feet,

First of all, where did you hear that very strange data ?
Second, as long as a defined border exists that is
sufficient to prevent passage even for as long as ten
minutes it is more than sufficient once you add military
patrols and posts every mile or so. Today there's a huge
amount of checkpoints and posts of the IDF in Judea and Sumaria
and a great deal of reservists also serve there. To defend
a single border would be a joke next to the present situation
and a lot less forces will be required with much less means
at their disposal.

Originally posted by kat
snatching up palestinian farm land, dividing palestinian towns, forcing them to permanentlyuse checkpoints in order to get from home to farmland..

The border is going to be in favour of Israel but by
rather little and many settlements are also left out.
No palestinian towns are supposed to be devided as
far as I know. It kin'na beats the purpose of a border
if you do that since the whole purpose is to leave
the Palestinians on one side and the Israelis (the normal
majority rather than those sick settlers) on the other side.
As for checkpoints the point is also to avoid having these
except for some that are really necessary like in the passage
between Judea and Sumaria.

Originally posted by kat
this fence is a permanent obstacle to peace settlement in a way that outpost have never been. How do you build a permanent "fence" on borders that have yet to be negotiated?

The border will be able to prevent suicide bombers from
entering Israel as they do today whenever they please
as it does in the Gaza strip. It will directly and
immidiatly stop most of the death on both sides -
suicide bombers, IDF invasions of Palestinian towns
and villages and direct military confrontations with
armed terrorist groups. It is the best and only current
solution to stop most of the killing. It is also a lot
easier to maintain financialy with far fewer forces
and means involved to guard it.

If the border will decrease the influence and control of
terrorists amongst the Palestinian people because they
will no longer be able to "inspire" the people with their
actions or justify their existence to the people then
purhaps a new Palestinian order will arize that will,
for the first time, be prepared to make real and serious
nagotiations. If and when that happens Israel will certainly
be prepared to nagotiate.

Again, the purpose of the border is simple and of
primary importance - to stop the killing. The rest can be
dealt with once some other solution presents itself.
The fact that this border is so far greatly incomplete
and terrorists are free to enter Israel whenever they
please with no obstical on their way while the IDF tries
to destroy the infrastructure of the terror organizations
in Palestinian towns to no awail, since they never lack
the people nor the weapons anyway, resulting in more killing
and hatred amongst the Palestinians, is a disgrace to the
Israeli government of the past couple of years that due to
political pressure of settlers and their supporters allows
people to be killed.

Live long and prosper.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by drag
I don't think people care much about the UN in the middle
east or in most other places btw. What is, however,
true is that the settlements are apparently the obstical
for peace.

Couldn't agree more. There have been dozens of UN resolutions regarding the Israeli/Arab situation, but only a handful have demanded any action, much less proposed a long term roadmap for peace. I would have thought that this would be just the type of problem the UN was created to deal with, but it has proven itself incapable of dealing with it.

There are a number of obstacles for peace - the settlements are one for the PA (the existence of Israel itself is of course a dealbreaker for Hamaas). The terrorism is a dealbreaker for Israel. Nevertheless, I find it at least a little promising that Israel and the PA are at least talking despite not having the dealbreaker issues settled first.

 

[FZ+]

Actually, you will find that a major reason the UN did not undertake any measures regarding the conflict is that the US vetoed any resolution involving actions against Israel.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by FZ+
Actually, you will find that a major reason the UN did not undertake any measures regarding the conflict is that the US vetoed any resolution involving actions against Israel.

UN Resolutions alone can't create peace and ones that single out individual issues are more of a hinderance than a help. The UN has never made a serious effort at peace in the middle east and that has nothing to do with US veto of individual resolutions.

Only by mutual agreement (which clearly can't be simply imposed, it must be NEGOTIATED), can peace happen. And that means diplomatic negotiation. If the UN wanted to solve the problem, they would bring the parties to the UN to do the only thing the UN is capable of doing: TALK. The US roadmap is nice, but the essential component is the fact that the two sides are now sitting across from each other at a table talking.

 

[FZ+]

No but without resolutions, the UN can't act positively either. The whole process is blocked up at the first hurdle. Hence, you can complain how the Un is failing to do what it is supposed to do, but that isn't the UN's fault. It is the failure of the leading nations in the UN, especially US to come to an agreement.
And I doubt the sitting talking is a real step towards acheivement. Without practical actions, all we are doing (as evidenced by anti-Palestinian PM protests) is to separate the people in charge from the reality of the situation. We appear to be talking success, but weaving failure.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by FZ+
No but without resolutions, the UN can't act positively either. The whole process is blocked up at the first hurdle. Hence, you can complain how the Un is failing to do what it is supposed to do, but that isn't the UN's fault. It is the failure of the leading nations in the UN, especially US to come to an agreement.
And I doubt the sitting talking is a real step towards acheivement. Without practical actions, all we are doing (as evidenced by anti-Palestinian PM protests) is to separate the people in charge from the reality of the situation. We appear to be talking success, but weaving failure.

The UN does other things besides just making resolutions, FZ+. They have human rights councils, economic councils, councils to deal with many specific problems. They can appoint a council to host negotiations between the two sides - and make it open ended, not limited to a specific issue. Maybe the resolution creates a panel to oversee the negotiations, but that's it - and no such resolution has ever even been proposed. The UN has never proposed any real plan (ie, the current US roadmap) that could lead to peace.

Pretty much all of the resolutions regarding the Arab/Israeli issue are 'The UN condemns Israel for XXX' and 'The UN condemns the Arabs for YYY' (for example, the list you posted...) Those are all complaints, not efforts to find a solution.